We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
“For now we see through a glass darkly, but then [we shall see] face-to-face.” Paul,
Corinthians I.13.12
“When we look at a thing, we must examine its essence and treat its appearance merely as an usher at the threshold, we must grasp the essence of the thing; this is the only reliable and scientific method of analysis.”
Mao TseTung, “A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire” January 5, 1930, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 119
“…By analysis we mean analyzing the contradiction in things. And sound analysis is impossible without a real understanding of the pertinent contradictions.”
Mao TseTung, Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work (March 12, 1957, 1st. pocket ed., p. 20)
That is our task today then – to look at the thing, to examine its essence by treating its appearance as an usher at the threshold – by analyzing the pertinent contradictions. The glass through (in) which I would like us to look today is then (as in the quotation from Paul) a mirror offered by George Boolos's “Must We Believe in Set Theory?” – a wonderful, but, as I shall argue, unusually (even-for-George) enigmatic paper.
I will set the stage by reminding us very briefly of three accounts or conceptions of sets that figure in what I shall be discussing today – not so much for their specific details, but rather for the sake of broad-brush contrast. Nothing I say will depend on the exact detail.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.